Is this for real?

Sesshoumaru

I was really bored browseing through metacafe and came across this. Is this for real? do Muslims believe God revealed scientific truths through one liners like this? To me it just seems to be really stretching credibility!

the_new_mr

Yes, Muslims do believe that God revealed scientific miracles in the Quran. You can make your own mind up on it

Here is the link to the full length video of the one you linked to.
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_miracles_quran.php

Also, here is the website that is based on that video.
http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/miraclesofthequran/index.html

Hope this answers your question!

Wibbs

A bit of this was discussed here already; http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054914634&page=2 If you ignore the_new_mr's and my star wars references you'll get the gist of it.

It can be surprising what so called primitive ancients knew. http://www.cdnn.info/news/science/sc060606.html If you read through this it looks like the Greeks knew the sun was at the center long before the rest of the world copped on to it, and built a computational device to track the movements.

the_new_mr

Yeah, there's lots to read through there.

And you'll also find a link there showing how Galen and others who were credited for having done a lot of work already on the reproductive system were miles away from the level of detail described in the Quran. Not only that but they made huge errors. The article is long but worth a good look if you have the time.

http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttals/PlagiarismGreek/

Keeping in mind that the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) was illiterate and you'll find that these miracles are even more incredible. Anyway, it's up to each individual to make their own mind up.

The jedi references are on page 3. Or should I say: "On page 3, the jedi references are."

Sesshoumaru

So who wrote the Quran? I mean obviously Mohamed didn't write it if he was illiterate?

the_new_mr

Muslims believe that the Quran was revealed to Mohamed (peace be upon him) by God through the Angel Gabriel over a period of 23 years.

Upon each revelation, the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) would instruct someone nearby to write down what was just revealed. During the Prophet's lifetime, a large number of his companions commmitted the Quran to memory and even more did it after his death (literally thousands of people today have it completely memorised). Then, after his death, all the revelations were collected together in one book in the order that was instructed by the Prophet who was in turn instructed by the Angel Gabriel who was in turn instructed by God.

This the same Quran that exists today. All copies of the Quran are exactly the same. It should be noted however that the Quran only exists in Arabic and while it's perfectly accepted to read a translation, it's not the Quran since a translation must have a certain amount of interpretation.

Hope this answers your question and feel free to ask any more. You might find the "FAQ" and "Links and Resources" thread useful.

Also, this site in particular is very well done. It's not perfect though.
http://islamonline.net/English/Discover_Islam/UnderstandingIslam/index.shtml

Sesshoumaru

Well it was interesting to read that Muslims accept the world is billions of years old. Honestly I was thinking they would be more in tune with christian groups in the US who favour the creationist theory of God clicking his fingers and behold there was the earth and all life

the_new_mr

Yes, Islam is completly in agreement with science with respect to the age of the earth. Although God does says He created the earth in two days.

Fussilat:9
"Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds."

we are also told that sometimes time measured by God is not always the same as time measured by humans (in the way of Einstein's theory)

Sajda:5
"He governs all that exists, from the celestial space to the earth; and in the end all shall ascend unto Him [for judgment] on a Day the length whereof will be [like] a thousand years of your reckoning."

That particular day will be like a thousand years of those of earth.

Al-Ma'arig:4
"The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years"

And that one is different showing how days measured by God are not the same as days measured by humans. Particular importance is placed on the fact that the above verse does not contain "of your reckoning" at the end of it.

And a couple of more verses showing this fact.

Al-Mu'Minun:112-114
"He will say: How long tarried ye in the earth, counting by years?; They will say: We tarried but a day or part of a day. Ask of those who keep count!; He will say: Ye tarried but a little if ye only knew."

Sesshoumaru

Does the Quran mention anything about life extension technology? What would be Islam’s view on biotechnology that seeks to halt or even reverse the aging process? This seems like the next big area of scientific endeavour in the 21st century. It would be interesting to know if this kind of up and coming technology is being discussed by Islamic scholars?

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Muslims believe that the Quran was revealed to Mohamed (peace be upon him) by God through the Angel Gabriel over a period of 23 years.

Upon each revelation, the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) would instruct someone nearby to write down what was just revealed. During the Prophet's lifetime, a large number of his companions commmitted the Quran to memory and even more did it after his death (literally thousands of people today have it completely memorised). Then, after his death, all the revelations were collected together in one book in the order that was instructed by the Prophet who was in turn instructed by the Angel Gabriel who was in turn instructed by God.

This the same Quran that exists today. All copies of the Quran are exactly the same. It should be noted however that the Quran only exists in Arabic and while it's perfectly accepted to read a translation, it's not the Quran since a translation must have a certain amount of interpretation.

As a possibly interesting aside, maybe for a seperate thread.

Research on the origins of the Quran, have not been near as extensive or rigorous as those conducted on other religious texts like the gospels/bible etc. There is the Muslim belief that the others while divinely informed were corrupted or changed by writers through the ages(correct me if I'm wrong there), while the Quran comes to us unchanged. All Muslim scholarship seems to emanate from this first principle.

First things first, this is not an attack in any form on the faith of Islam. If taken that way please delete. This is merely an inquiry into how even if you take the divine origin theory as truth, changes can creep in to the original text(mistranslations etc). I'm loathe to get into musings on whether passages have been lost, or passages were added later. Oral traditions have a tendency to change in small ways over time, so before collection of the sacred texts, some of it may have been lost to us. Given that many of the commentators of hadeeth lived long after the Prophet(Bukhari was 200 yrs later), there would be a simlar distance of chronology with the new testament(scrutiny of which doesn't seem to have damaged the Christian faith). The earliest known Islamic text, the Fiqh Akbar I from 750, does not even mention the Quran, which is strange(but not conclusive) given it's later importance. There are even differing traditions of it's collection, even among Muslims, but that I would feel, unless the mods disagree, is maybe for a historical forum not a religious one.

A few years back when looking into Islam(more recently on the web), I remember reading that the earliest full text of the Quran was from the 9th century, although earlier fragments from the 8th exist. Interestingly(or not), while that 9th century text survives pretty much unchanged to the present and in this religious context we may take this copy/version as "first principle", certain areas of interpretation might be open for debate.

The earliest copies of the Quran are written without vowels and diacritical dots that more modern Arabic uses to imply what vowel sound/letter is meant. Early Arabic script is consonantal. In the time of the prophet Arabic as it comes to us today wasn't even a fully formed written language as almost nothing of it survives pre Islam. This in itself might have caused some mistranslation.

The one example I've read is the 72 virgins in heaven bit. Apparently depending on the aforementioned dots and translation, it could mean pale raisins. A prized delicacy reflecting the rewards of heaven(which makes more sense and importantly isn't gender specific. Other later translations use the word to kill in place of the the word to fight. A big change indeed. One that would take the more martial sting out of many of the passages that have many in the west confused. If you take the aramaic or early arabic context on board these changes would be even more likely.

It wouldn't change the overall message of the faith, but may lead to a greater understanding from within and without. Given that many Islamic scholars interpreted the Quran more metaphorically than literally a 1000 years ago, this would not be a new thing. In fact, maybe that kind of looser interpretation(while still being devout) was what gave Islam the advantage in many ways when compared to Christian thinking at the time. It could even be argued that when Christianity began to be less prone to literalism it started to advance as Islam waned in the face of literalism. It didn't make the Christians less religious per se either. Maybe the so called "reformation" of Islam discussed in another thread may spring from the original "authentic" text, which would satisfy the faithful and even increase and strengthen the faith for the future. Just a thought.

the_new_mr

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Does the Quran mention anything about life extension technology? What would be Islam's view on biotechnology that seeks to halt or even reverse the aging process? This seems like the next big area of scientific endeavour in the 21st century. It would be interesting to know if this kind of up and coming technology is being discussed by Islamic scholars?

No mention of this in the Quran as far as I know. This is still something that needs to be examined by scholars and the Muslim world in general. My gut feeling (but don't take my word for it) is that it would be against Islamic principles since it largely changes the general cycle of life. This is not the same as using Dove cream to iron out wrinkles since that just changes the appearance of the skin and doesn't actually change the aging process (despite what the women in the ad tell you ).

I imagine that using biotechnology to halt or reverse the aging process would be seen in the same light as unnecessary plastic surgery or worse and would not be permissable... but as I said, don't take my word for it

Well, I was going to delete your post Wibbs as you recommended since its not the thread (or the forum) for it but I wouldn't want anyone to think that your questions couldn't be answered and also I'd like you to know what's correct and incorrect

There are a number of errors in your post.

Wibbs wrote:

There is the Muslim belief that the others while divinely informed were corrupted or changed by writers through the ages(correct me if I'm wrong there), while the Quran comes to us unchanged.

The Islamic view of the Bible and Torah is that they were indeed changed or corrupted either intentionally or unintentionally. Still, the Islamic view (and one that is not widely known by even Muslims themselves I should add... I didn't even now until recently myself!) is also that whatever form the Bible and Torah were in at the beginning was still not the literal word of God. Taking the Bible as an example, they are made up of Gospels of Jesus' (peace be upon him) companions but are not the direct words that God said to Jesus (peace be upon him). Although there are a number of passages (which no doubt some still exist to this day) that Jesus (peace be upon him) would have said directly, it's hard to differentiate them from the rest.

Anyway, that last point is moot really. Even if the Bible and Torah were the literal word of God in the beginning, they're not now after all the intentional and unintentional corruptions (including additions and omissions) as well as any meaning that was lost in translation from the original language. The scholars of these respected religions admit this themselves. I never like to see a copy of the Quran that doesn't have the original Arabic beside the translated text.

Wibbs wrote:

even if you take the divine origin theory as truth, changes can creep in to the original text(mistranslations etc).

Just quickly there. The Quran was revealed in Arabic and is still around and distributed in Arabic. There were most definitely no problems of lost in translation here (unlike the case of the Torah or Bible with Greek to English for example).

Wibbs wrote:

Oral traditions have a tendency to change in small ways over time, so before collection of the sacred texts, some of it may have been lost to us.

The Quran is not an oral tradition. I should mention that the first time the Quran was compiled in one book was during the time of Abu Bakr Al-Sadeeq as the leader of the Muslim nation who died 12 years after the Hijra meaning that the compilation of the Quran had to have happened within two years after the death of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him). Also, another important point is that literally thousands of the companions had completely memorised the Quran to heart and so there would have been no possibility of error.

This is massively different to an "oral tradition" such as the hadith (sayings of the Prophet) which can over time loose their accuracy which is why there are different levels of accuracy for different hadith. So, there are some hadith which cannot be relied upon but scholars are agreed on a majority of them. In the end, if there is something that scholars may differ on then you can "ask your heart" to attempt to find the truth and, God willing, God will guide you to the truth. Still, Muslims regard a book such as Sahih Al-Bukhari (a collection of hadith) as the most correct book after the Quran.

Wibbs wrote:

The earliest copies of the Quran are written without vowels and diacritical dots that more modern Arabic uses to imply what vowel sound/letter is meant. Early Arabic script is consonantal.

I think you have misunderstood this. Let me explain something.

The dots you speak of were not used for letters such as geem, ha and kha in the past. These three letters are the same except for a dot below the letter, no dot or a dot above the letter respectively. The only analogy I can make here with English is if we were to place a dot above a C to denote a C that sounds like and S and no dot for a C that sounds like a K. Know what I mean? That's how the Arabic was read and the dots were added later only to increase clarification (an addition I personally would welcome to help foreign English speakers prononuce words like "Special" correctly )

In adding the dots, it was just a matter of adding them in the way that they knew the text. It would be like me asking you to either add a dot or not on the C for the words "Special" and "Lock".

Also, the large number of people who had memorised the Quran meant that a letter could not receive the wrong dots (or no dots as the case may be).

Wibbs wrote:

In the time of the prophet Arabic as it comes to us today wasn't even a fully formed written language as almost nothing of it survives pre Islam. This in itself might have caused some mistranslation

As I've already explained, the memorisation of the Quran would have solved any problem here. Also, the Arabic language was very well known for its richness and was used all the time for poetry.

At this point, I'd just like to highlight the fact that it's not like the Quran was written, stored and then discovered centuries after. It was always memorised and always known.

As for the "translation" you mention, I'm not sure if you mean the case with the dots or with translation to a language other than Arabic. As already explained, Arabic is the only true language of the Quran and any translation is also an interpretation and limited by the understanding of the human mind in our current age.

Wibbs wrote:

Apparently depending on the aforementioned dots and translation, it could mean pale raisins.
...
Other later translations use the word to kill in place of the the word to fight. A big change indeed. One that would take the more martial sting out of many of the passages that have many in the west confused.

Once again, this is down to translation (and thereby interpretation) to a language other than Arabic and has nothing to do with the dots.

Wibbs wrote:

Given that many Islamic scholars interpreted the Quran more metaphorically than literally a 1000 years ago, this would not be a new thing.

Well, it must be said that some scholars try to take a complete literal meaning out of texts where metaphor is implied and isn't necessarily correct. Other scholars see this as a mistake except in the case of obvious cases. And only God knows.

All the points I've presented I believe put the idea that the Quran has changed from what it began as to rest quite solidly. Of course, this is all on the assumption that it was not revealed by God. If you do believe that it was revealed by God (as I do), then this verse is enough.

Al-Hijr:9
"Behold, it is We Ourselves who have bestowed from on high, step by step, this reminder? and, behold, it is We who shall truly guard it [from all corruption]."

And the points I've mentioned above strengthen the faith of those who believe.

Wibbs wrote:

It could even be argued that when Christianity began to be less prone to literalism it started to advance as Islam waned in the face of literalism. It didn't make the Christians less religious per se either. Maybe the so called "reformation" of Islam discussed in another thread may spring from the original "authentic" text, which would satisfy the faithful and even increase and strengthen the faith for the future. Just a thought.

I once heard someone say something that I think fits the bill perfectly here. They said "We have to worship God on his terms, not on ours" Interpretation is what is required but pick and choosing to what we think is right is not on. Don't get me wrong, there is interpretation required when reading the Quran but there are some things that leave no room at all for interpretation. For example,

Al:Ma'ida:90
"O ye who believe! intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper."

Now Wibbs, I regret having to do this but I'm afraid that you've really left me with no choice but to temporarily ban you. I sincerely hope that nobody thinks that I'm moderating this forum with an iron fist but let me assure everyone that this is keeping entirely within the rules of the forum and that I had already given Wibbs a warning in another thread. I had hoped that I wouldn't have to do this.

See you in a week Wibbs.

Sesshoumaru

I can't remember where I read it.... but I remember reading some comments from a catholic priest before and he was saying radical life extension/immortality wouldn't be a problem with christian beliefs as immortality wasn't the same as eternal life as far as he was concerned. The logic being that Immortals can die, eternal life in heaven was.....well eternal

Suff

well done the_new_mr , great member to have in the islamic forum.

Wibbs I see you got yourself another Muslim discussion...

I must ask (Wibbs)...you seem very interested in Islam and it seems you have issues that you're trying to solve/understand! how did this come about?

I am a Muslim ( trying to be a good one I must add ) I do exactly as you do, I question things, I dont accept anything unless it does have a valid and a strong proof.

Suff

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I can't remember where I read it.... but I remember reading some comments from a catholic priest before and he was saying radical life extension/immortality wouldn't be a problem with christian beliefs as immortality wasn't the same as eternal life as far as he was concerned. The logic being that Immortals can die, eternal life in heaven was.....well eternal

I think the way Islam view this is as follows:

the soul never dies, so no matter if you were a believer or a non-believer you will live forever (the soul) either in heaven or in hell.
there are three worlds in Islam, the current world we live in, "Al Barzagh" which is the world we'll go to when we die and await Judgment Day which is the final world. the soul will live in all three worlds regardless of the faith but that life will either be honnored or punished

the_new_mr

Suff wrote:

well done the_new_mr

Thanks Suff! I must thank God for helping me and I hope He forgives me for any errors I may have made.

It's great to have you and others too!